Is REDD dead? Many delegates at the climate talks being held in Cancun might be asking themselves this after a confusing two weeks that saw an issue that was being touted as a signpost of progress relegated to the pile of stalled negotiations.

REDD means protecting forests and the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions released, and sinks lost, by deforestation. In its most pristine state it is a mechanism that accomplishes something that everyone wants: to protect our forests. But it also has it problems.

First, it sometimes undermines other means of protecting our forest that are already working, such as laws that prevent deforestation. Why pay someone not to do something that is already against the law. And if you do start paying them, why would they want to respect the law, unless they were being paid to do so. Imagine if we applied this principle to any domestic society and paid people for respecting the law. There would not be much incentive to respect laws when one was not paid.

Second, REDD+ projects are often created and implemented without properly taking indigenous peoples’ concerns into account. Often indigenous people are not consulted or not properly consulted; often indigenous people do not benefit from REDD+ projects but may suffer greatly including being up-rooted or denied access to their own land.

Third, REDD+ projects commoditize the environment under the guise of offering incentives to protect it. Similarly to what was said above, and perhaps of even greater concern where there is the absence of a legal obligation, REDD+ provides incentives to protect forests only when one is paid to do so. What if REDD+ money runs out? Or what if the REDD+ project, like that that Norway just signed with Indonesia, calls for a freeze on deforestation only for two years? You can make up a two-year freeze and then some pretty quickly. The enthusiasm with which loggers may go about their work after the two-year freeze could be frightening.

After REDD+ was adopted in 2005 and developed countries pushed for its implementation by 2008 it has stalled because the guidelines or framework for implementing REDD+ projects has not been agreed. In Copenhagen such disagreements meant REDD+ was stalled. But developed countries and their business cronies could not let such an opportunity to make money on the environment slip away. Between Copenhagen and Cancun developed countries used carrots, quiet a few of them, to draw not only developed countries and some developed countries into the fold, but even to buy indigenous peoples support for selling their own heritage to the highest bidder. It has reached the State that pre-Cancun optimism suggested that the framework for REDD+ would be agreed on in Cancun.

Some of the bribes and coercion have been exposed and now it may be coming back to bite the REDD+ proponents.

In Cancun, rather than progress, REDD+ is stuck in the sand. There is not agreement on financing, on MRV or on indigenous rights.

Brazil and Papua New Guinea are blocking MRV. Bolivia is pushing for strong indigenous rights protections and to exclude market mechanisms from REDD+ with support from numerous developing countries.

It appears that, at least for now, REDD is dead. Whether it will be revived may depend on what version is on offer.

Norway, the largest contributor to REDD+ projects in the world, has said it can accept REDD+ without a market mechanism. If its was agreed that REDD+ would be financed through an equitable public option this may go a long way towards getting the MRV that other donors are adamant about wanting. So while REDD+ is dead, maybe it will be reincarnated as a publicly funded effort to support developing countries in protecting their forests. This would be more in keeping with the UNFCCC and perhaps that is what States are actually suppose to do.

The second to last day of COP16 began with many delegates wondering whether this was a COP of progress or retreat. Indeed for many the 13 August 2010 text looked to call for stronger action on climate change than the various 'Chair's Notes' that had appeared in the interim.

 

The High Level Segement commenced with an emotive speech by Bolivian President Evo Morales that was interrupted four times by applause from the audience for his courageous support for effective action on climate change.

He called for the establishment of the international tribunal to punish both States and individuals that violate the international law concerning climate change.

He called for extending, in a meaningful way the emissions limits in the Kyoto Protocol.

 

Prehaps his best quote was the insightful: “La crisis climática es un síntoma de la crisis capitalista" ("The crisis of the climate is a symptom of the crisis of capitalism.")

also showed extraordinary leadership by being the only State to submit draft decisions for the Conference of the Parties (COP). It submitted three decisions. One was on "A Shared Vision for long-term cooperative action." Another on "Policy approaches on issues relating to forest such as deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests in developing countries." And a finally decision on "Various approaches." At least it makes the point that there is no wheer to discuss it at COP16 as the plenaries have been essentially adjourned since the first week.

 

At around 9 pm, the COP16 President convened an informal stock taking plenary. At the plenary the LCA and KP chair reported as did the pairs of Ministers tasks with looking at several speciifc areas. The LCA chair reported essentially that the work was deadlocked. KP seemed more positive, but the chair said he could do not more with the COP16 President's guidance. In the end it looked like none of the COP16 bodies might adopt even a single decision. Indeed, the President said she would produce a new text in the next few hours and then convene a pleanry at 8 am to do stocktaking. At the same time she extolled States to contiune to negotiate. Many wondered what they were waiting for...new text being produced by the President while they contiuned to negotiate? Were the text being prepared contemporaneously with the negotiations? Had they already been prepared? What was the sense of negotiating when texts were already on their way? When would these oddly hatched texts arrive? Where were they right now? All questions that for many delagtions woudl not be answered until tomorrow morning.

 

Some said that some more equal delegations already had the magic texts that woud appear a few hours later to the vision of everyone. Perhaps only such an extraordinary revelation could make progress at the COP16.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While diplomats from developed countries and developing countries traded carefully worded barbs, some observers from Africa--the continent likely to suffer the most from the adverse impact most affected by climate change--were franker about the lack of strong action to prevent the most damaging impacts from climate change.

Speaking at a press conference, Mr. Tetteh Normeku, of Friends of the Earth Africa, called upon African leaders to lead Africa and stand up for the rights of Africans.

Mr. Mathika Mwenda of the Pan-Africa Climate Justice Alliance said "we want our African negotiators to stick to our African position." He also noted that the Kenyan Prime Minister had been tricked into presenting a speech that was contrary to his country's position that strongly supports new emission limits for the Kyoto Protocol. The speech was allegedly written by a Japanese advisor on economic issues who was seconded to the Kenyan government.  It was thus likely not a coincidence that the allegedly 'new' Kenyan position just happened to be much closer to Japan's Kyoto skepticism.

Commenting on the World Bank's announcement that it was establishing a fund to support carbon trading (see Day 10), Ms Siziwe Khayile of Third World Network Africa emphasized that from an Africans perspective "it's past time for the World Bank to get out of climate finance."

With the High Level Segment underway the negotiations have moved into high gear.

At her afternoon civil society briefing the LCA Chair defended the CPR3 "Elements of the outcome, Note by the Chair" by implying that it was not her text but text agreed by the parties. She commented on the elimination of most of the human rights references and the relegation of a mention of Mother Earth to a footnote saying that these concepts were "very problematic," (not mentioning that this was apparently mainly to her view as States not only had consensus on the inclusion of these ideas and have agreed to them expressly in UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions).

Mexican President Calderon is holding two public meetings during the next few days that appear to be an attempt to create an urgency for action. The first today (Wednesday, 8 December 2010) is entitled “Consequences of inaction: our responsibility to act now” and the second on Thursday is entitled “The struggle against climate change, what should our legacy be?” Both seem to be an attempt to motivate States to action, but we don't know which heads of States will be present...which makes all the difference for the message that is sent.

The World Bank announced a new fund to encourage carbon trading that Wordl Bank President Zellick said "put in place domestic trading schemes and other market-based instruments to meet national mitigation objectives." Among other things the new fund is intended to provide support to companies that end their illegal practice of gas flaring in, among other places, Nigeria...something that has been illegal in that country for years! It is quite unusual that the WB is willing to pay governments and companies for not undertaking or ending an already illegal activity. Is it a good idea for the WB to start subsidizing everyone who 'does not break the law.'

The negotiations appear to be moving from whether or action will be taken to whether the action taken will be good or bad for our planet. On the one side you have Bolivia, the ALBA Group and the 135 States of the G77, on the other side you have the increasingly isolated US. Yesterday, one of the United States main negotiators Jonathan Pershing watched the opening of the high level session from the very back of the overflow room. He seemed quite alienated as increasingly his government is seen to be.<br><br>
In the shared vision text Bolivia is fighting valiantly to put back the strong language that the Chair unilaterally took out. A new LCA text may emerge today.

Can someone tell me why we talking about 100 billion per year when the World Bank (at page 256 of its most recent 2010 World Development Report) set the figure at over 800 billion needed annually to combat the adverse impacts of climate change?

The roller coaster ride of the climate talks continued.

In the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), a strong decision was adopted on Education and Training (art. 6 of the UNFCCC), that included encouragement for financing, giving youth a voice, and a broad understanding of the levels of education to which it applies. One observer called the act of adopting the strong decision a show of "high ambition and flexibility."

Significantly, China also offered to allow its non-legally binding commitment to cut its emissions by 40 to 45% by 2050 to be stated in a draft Kyoto Protocol decision.

The speakers in the high level segment included heads of states or ministers from Mexico, Nauru, Palau, Guatemala, Colombia, Grenada, Ethiopia, Kenya, Yemen, Australia, Lesotho, Venezuela, Yemen, and Kenya and the UN Secretary-General.

Ethiopian Prime Minster Melese Zenawi speaking for the African States lamented the slow pace of the disbursement of the promised 30 billion US fast track financing. He did not mention that in Copenhagen he agreed to this US-led initiative despite the protests of most African States. Instead of remorse, however, he called for the Fast-Track Fund to be created in Cancun. It appears he did not learn the lesson of what happens when a State trusts other States that have contrary interests, to look after its interests.